[PF] Why is the "nimble shot" magic weapon special ability a +4?

[Red Bear]

DESCRIPTION

This special ability can only be placed on ranged weapons. A nimble shot weapon doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity when fired.

Is this a mistake? Usually weapon qualities that grant the benefits of a feat when using the weapon are a +1. (e.g. keen, Mighty Cleaving) +4 is really too much for this quality.
Am I missing something?

[Psyren]

Well, technically it's granting you three feats, because you're getting Point Blank Master without the prereqs.

I agree it's a bit steep though.

[Red Bear]

Well, technically it's granting you three feats, because you're getting Point Blank Master without the prereqs.

I agree it's a bit steep though.

You're right, I didn't considered that. Then I think I'll house rule that nimble shot is a +3 bonus if you have weapon focus with the weapon and a +2 if you have weapon specialization or if you are a ranger that chose the archery combat style.

Thank you for your answer.

[grarrrg]

because you're getting Point Blank Master without the prereqs.

And because one of those Pre-req feats is fairly difficult to come by.

Weapon Specialization means you _need_ to have 4 levels in Fighter, 6 levels in Ranger (Archery Style), or 3 levels of Zen Archer Monk.

It's priced fairly high because it gives access to a feat that would otherwise be VERY off limits for most builds.
That being said, +4 is a bit steep, just knock it down to a flat +3 and call it a day, because basing item costs on what feats a character has can get silly.

[Psyren]

Weapon Specialization means you _need_ to have 4 levels in Fighter, 6 levels in Ranger (Archery Style), or 3 levels of Zen Archer Monk.

It's priced fairly high because it gives access to a feat that would otherwise be VERY off limits for most builds.

I agree but it's a bit easier to get than you think;there are other classes that can fill the requirement. For instance, a Magus can pick up Weapon Specialization at 10 without multiclassing, as can an Eldritch Knight 4 or Samurai 4 and possibly some others I'm forgetting.

So you could drop 4 levels of EK into an Arcane Archer build and get Point Blank Master without losing too much casting, if you wanted this ability without an overly expensive or diluted bow.

[Red Bear]

+4 is a bit steep, just knock it down to a flat +3 and call it a day, because basing item costs on what feats a character has can get silly.

I guess you're right, it's a little bit silly, it might be a good idea to just knock it down to +3

[Jgosse]

And because one of those Pre-req feats is fairly difficult to come by.

Weapon Specialization means you _need_ to have 4 levels in Fighter,


Myself and most of The Dms I know play that fighter only feats are open to any class with full base attack progression. kind of a inherited house rule.

[Lord_Gareth]

...Is there any reason, balance-wise, that this shouldn't be a +1 ability?

[Psyren]

...Is there any reason, balance-wise, that this shouldn't be a +1 ability?

+1's too low imo. Provoking with ranged attacks is an important disadvantage; being able to overcome it with any level 6 character (i.e. almost before you even need to stand still and shoot for any reason) would be a bit too soon.

I think +4 is too much, but +1 is definitely too little.

[Bruenin]

nevermind, I need to read thread titles more clearly. Everything I see that interests me ends up PF and I post the wrong info.

[Ravens_cry]

Yeah, this is a tricky one to balance. +3 is more reasonable, but even then almost no one would take it, unless they were starting at high level and had a good chunk of cash to spend.

[Lanaya]

Well, technically it's granting you three feats, because you're getting Point Blank Master without the prereqs.

I agree it's a bit steep though.

Well no, it's granting one feat which has prerequisite feats. Granting three feats might be worth a +4 bonus.

[Psyren]

Well no, it's granting one feat which has prerequisite feats. Granting three feats might be worth a +4 bonus.

Despite only giving you one, it still gives more value than that one feat - since you both gain the benefits, and also effectively have 3 feats you can spend elsewhere.

[TuggyNE]

Despite only giving you one, it still gives more value than that one feat - since you both gain the benefits, and also effectively have 3 feats you can spend elsewhere.

You gain the benefits of one of those feats. You don't gain any of the benefits of the other two: it doesn't give you +1 to hit and +2 damage, nor enable you to qualify for other feats with those prerequisites.

Making it a +2 ability seems, to my eye, not unreasonable, since the only extra bonus you get beyond "one feat" is "ignore two prerequisites".

[Psyren]

You gain the benefits of one of those feats. You don't gain any of the benefits of the other two.

You don't pay the cost for those other two either though, i.e. you have two feat slots to spend on something else, if all you wanted was the PBM.

[TuggyNE]

You don't pay the cost for those other two either though, i.e. you have two feat slots to spend on something else, if all you wanted was the PBM.

So it's a +3 or +4 because the ability doesn't use up two extra feat slots doing nothing?

... Not sure I'm understanding this right. :smallconfused:

1
OK, let's try this again.{table=head]Weapon Special|Benefit|Cost|Expected Cost
Nimble Shot|One feat, two prereqs ignored|+4|+2
Keen|One feat|+1|+1
Seeking|Half of one feat, three prereqs ignored|+1|+1[/table]

Does that make more sense?

[Spore]

Class restrictions are always more expensive than typical feats.

[TuggyNE]

Class restrictions are always more expensive than typical feats.

Despite the fact that there's at least half a dozen classes that can get this in one fashion or another, and despite the fact that that's essentially just another prereq (which puts it on a line with IPS/seeking)? :smallconfused:

[Psyren]

Does that make more sense?

(1) You're grossly undervaluing the liberated feats (they amount to a tax/dead weight otherwise) and (2) this is a pretty clear false equivalency. You can't just say "feat = feat" and not account for the fact that not provoking AoO in melee is way more likely to save your life than a piddly threat range increase. Seeking is more useful but again, does not do much to keep you alive or open up your tactical options beyond what they already are.

[Lord_Gareth]

I've gotta say, I think you (and Paizo) are grossly overexaggerating the usefulness of this close combat shot ability. Short of Step Up being present you can munchkin moonwalk away from most humanoid enemies. It means more against reach but by the time you come up against reach you'd be better off (investment-wise) grabbing more range instead of those three feats. +2 sounds about right to me.

[Psyren]

I could live with +2, but initially you said +1 - which would basically allow you to get this the instant you got your second attack and full-attacking began to mean something.

And again I say that Paizo overcosted it at +4.

[Certified]

I could live with +2, but initially you said +1 - which would basically allow you to get this the instant you got your second attack and full-attacking began to mean something.

And again I say that Paizo overcosted it at +4.

To jump on the Overcompensating Bandwagon here I agree +4 seems a bit much. However, exclusivity is a factor along with the requirements. Yes there are multiple classes that can hit the requirements but that's a select number, even if it is around 10, if you include Prestige Classes. What should be considered are the classes that can't hit the required feats and how the Enchantment will impact them, such as a Bard, or Rogue.

If you are going to change the cost, I would suggest +3. As characters effectively no longer need to worry about what weapon they have in their hands when engaged at melee range.

[Eurus]

Gareth has a good point, though. 95% of the time, you can five foot step back and full attack. It's occasionally an issue -- and +1 is a perfectly fair price for a situationally useful perk. The fact that it's so hard to obtain via feats is a problem in itself.

[ericgrau]

I don't think it's that strong. I do think it goes against bow flavor to make it too easy and should be something that few archers can do. So I'll say +3 with the expectation that few archers will or should select it, but it will still be worth it for a handful of high level archers with a build focused on always being able to attack and hit regardless of circumstances. +2 would be totally fine if it were only about balance. Even +1 would be fine for archers in general who don't try to exploit it, but it's a mistake to not price things with the expectation that they'll be fully used. If someone's not going to use something much then they'll select a different ability that they will use a lot.

No one is going to try to get in melee range, but like I suggested it's good at high level alongside other abilities to always hit yes even then. In fact to exploit it further I'd put it on some arrows rather than my bow, to make it cost very little by only blowing the arrows when I actually need it. So really it's a matter of 360 gp x number of arrows expected to use (+1 & +2 nimble) vs. 640 gp x number of arrows expected to use (+1 & +3 nimble), which isn't much for a high level character when he'll only use it on a rainy day. Maybe 2,000-8,000 gp to make a high level build a little stronger? Sure, that's payable.

+4 is a bit silly ya. And I say that as a stickler against even small power creep.

[Red Bear]

I don't think it's that strong. I do think it goes against bow flavor to make it too easy and should be something that few archers can do. So I'll say +3 with the expectation that few archers will or should select it, but it will still be worth it for a handful of high level archers with a build focused on always being able to attack and hit regardless of circumstances. +2 would be totally fine if it were only about balance. Even +1 would be fine for archers in general who don't try to exploit it, but it's a mistake to not price things with the expectation that they'll be fully used. If someone's not going to use something much then they'll select a different ability that they will use a lot.

No one is going to try to get in melee range, but like I suggested it's good at high level alongside other abilities to always hit yes even then. In fact to exploit it further I'd put it on some arrows rather than my bow, to make it cost very little by only blowing the arrows when I actually need it. So really it's a matter of 360 gp x number of arrows expected to use (+1 & +2 nimble) vs. 640 gp x number of arrows expected to use (+1 & +3 nimble), which isn't much for a high level character when he'll only use it on a rainy day. Maybe 2,000-8,000 gp to make a high level build a little stronger? Sure, that's payable.

+4 is a bit silly ya. And I say that as a stickler against even small power creep.

I don't think you can put this ability on arrows, since it can only be placed on ranged weapons. Anyway I am more and more convinced it should be a +2.

[Fax Celestis]

I think a lot of it has to do with how it was valued in 3.5: the ability to not provoke from firing in melee was an epic feat. It probably got downgraded to a +4 ability rather than the more reasonable +2 because the devs were worried about grognards with sacred cow expectations for PF ports throwing a fit.

[Psyren]

Gareth has a good point, though. 95% of the time, you can five foot step back and full attack. It's occasionally an issue -- and +1 is a perfectly fair price for a situationally useful perk. The fact that it's so hard to obtain via feats is a problem in itself.

Step-Up exists and has basically no prereqs, so 95% is way, way too high. Also, reach is a thing too. So this is much more valuable than you're giving it credit for.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Just because Paizo grossly overpriced a feat to not provoke with ranged attacks, doesn't make it ok to overprice a magic weapon property that does the same even harder.


I think a lot of it has to do with how it was valued in 3.5: the ability to not provoke from firing in melee was an epic feat. It probably got downgraded to a +4 ability rather than the more reasonable +2 because the devs were worried about grognards with sacred cow expectations for PF ports throwing a fit.

The ability to note provoke with ranged attacks...

*AND*

...The ability to threaten and make AoOs with bow shots


...was a 1st level spell in 3E. That was an immediate action to cast. It's called arrow mind, and unlike the epic feat, it was actually printed during the 3.5 run. The Epic Level Handbook was a 3.0 source book.

[ArcturusV]

TuggyNE and Psyren:

If I'm getting the gist there right, the idea is that TuggyNE is suggesting that based on what it does, it should be +1 or +2. But Psyren is playing into the whole "Lost Revenues" type of angle. Where not charging for something is the same as paying for it (In this case in pre-req feats).

It's an odd mindset. It seems the developers went with the Lost Revenues approach, I'm guessing. That and overvaluing not triggering AoO which tends not to come up unless... I dunno... you're a ranged rogue trying to get Sneak Attack damage against a creature which has a very large reach? Very niche and situational.

I mean based on what it actually accomplishes, and how limited it is, I'd think +1 without delving into the Lost Revenues concept. Even then I'd have to look at the Pre-reqs more closely and ask myself "Would someone reasonably take these even if they already had Nimble Shot"? My gut feeling is the answer is "yes", though I haven't had any PF groups yet to see just how the character type that would want to do this (short ranged ranged weapon users) would be built.

[Psyren]

For the official record, Psyren is saying +3 or even +2. He too thinks +4 is too high.

[Quorothorn]

I've gotta say, I think you (and Paizo) are grossly overexaggerating the usefulness of this close combat shot ability. Short of Step Up being present you can munchkin moonwalk away from most humanoid enemies. It means more against reach but by the time you come up against reach you'd be better off (investment-wise) grabbing more range instead of those three feats. +2 sounds about right to me.

...."munchkin moonwalk" is the most hilarious descriptor of a 5-ft step I can recall seeing. Now THAT'S a +4, what.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Step Up really does piss me off. You can tell it was intended above all else to screw over casters. But in reality, concentration still exists (and has no investment cost now) and is still fairly easy after the first few levels, especially if not casting the highest level you could be.

But archers have to be one of a few specific classes, spend a bunch of feats, and wait 4+ levels to inoculate themselves. And reach weapon users? Well, they're just screwed without recourse at all. :smallmad:

[Psyren]

They give up a feat, their next turn's swift, their next turn's 5-foot step, and 5 feet off their next turn's move for the privilege though. That's an acceptable tradeoff imo.

And it's not like every monster under the sun is going to have it. Just the ones that the DM doesn't want to be Munchkin Moonwalked all over.

[Bhaakon]

There's also the problem of larger creatures with natural reach, which makes it impossible to moonwalk your way out of a monster's AoO range unless you're right on the edge of its threatened area.

[ArcturusV]

Yeah, but unless I was something like a rogue who needed that 30' range for sneak attack why wouldn't I be at least a good 100' away or something? That's why I think it's niche. If I'm ranged combat I'm something like a Ranger, or a Paladin layin' the smites down with my holy arrows of doom, etc. I have no reason to be anywhere near threatened range regardless.

Unless I'm missing something the conflux of conditions required to make this actually be necessary would be:

Rogue/other with Sneak Attack that needs to be within minimal rage.
Creature with large reach.
Lack of any combat control be it trips, grapples, spells that lock down, etc, from your party, keeping it from following you as you try to dance between threatened range and "still gets my Sneak Attack" range.

[Bhaakon]

Yeah, but unless I was something like a rogue who needed that 30' range for sneak attack why wouldn't I be at least a good 100' away or something?

It's dungeons and dragons, not wide open plains and dragons.

In my experience, and in especially published modules, long range combat is a rarity. When I do see it, it's usually because the PCs went to a lot of trouble to arrange it. The same can be said for battle maps amenable mounted combat, to a lesser extent.

[StreamOfTheSky]

It's dungeons and dragons, not wide open plains and dragons.

In my experience, and in especially published modules, long range combat is a rarity. When I do see it, it's usually because the PCs went to a lot of trouble to arrange it. The same can be said for battle maps amenable mounted combat, to a lesser extent.

Exactly. That's why all this effort to nerf archers in close quarters is so annoying to me. They don't even generally get to employ their primary advantage - RANGE - much at all in this game. Nor does shooting someone in the chest a few times make his axe strikes any more enfeebled than when he was at perfect health. The entire "advantage of ranged combat" is a joke, and yet designers keep insisting they must be vulnerable in melee combat to make up for it.

It's bad enough they use 2 stats for attack and damage, do significantly less damage per attack than just about any other martial 2H weapon (1d8 base, 1x str to damage only...IF you have/can afford the proper str adjusted bow). Oh, but I suppose they do get to always full attack. What's that? Sorry, the level 1 quadruped eidolon is on the phone for me...

[Lord_Gareth]

...."munchkin moonwalk" is the most hilarious descriptor of a 5-ft step I can recall seeing. Now THAT'S a +4, what.

It's a holdover from the WotC boards; it originally referred to 5-foot stepping away from a melee character so that you could cast a spell.

[ArcturusV]

It's dungeons and dragons, not wide open plains and dragons.

In my experience, and in especially published modules, long range combat is a rarity. When I do see it, it's usually because the PCs went to a lot of trouble to arrange it. The same can be said for battle maps amenable mounted combat, to a lesser extent.

Well, It's "Pathfinder" so I have to imagine (And what I've seen of games of it) involves more surface adventuring pathfinding than dungeon crawling. Though I can't say for certain, just the handful I've seen have been surface based campaigns which naturally opens up the range.

But even so. Even in a typically dungeon scenario it comes into play a lot more often than not. Because... chambers have to be big enough to support the monsters, support interesting battles where you can maneuver, AoE matters, etc. So typically I see rooms that might be something like 40' by 150' or so. Just a natural quirk of dungeon design unless you're exclusively dealing with things like Kobold Dungeons and Goblin Dungeons (In which case it's more like 30' by 80').

Archer in that situation? Has no reason to go into the chamber. I almost never see them do. Because the smart money is to stay at the doorway, use it for cover against anything inside the room, and just lean out and pop people with an arrow/bolt/javelin/throwing axe/etc. Not only does he get Cover, he maximizes his range (And with Conan and company charging into the room to engage in melee, that 80' or so feet they have to cross might as well be a mile) and it lets him keep his eyes out on the corridors, etc, to see if reinforcements are coming.

So the ranged thing still comes into play and you're not attracting AoO. At least in practical "Stuff I see around the table" terms.

Granted I can understand it for something like the Rogue who wants to be at point blank range for the extra dice. Makes sense. But not really a weakness of ranged combat in general.

Granted, there could be exceptions to that "open chamber" sort of dungeon. But it tends to be the exception. I think most DMs realize pretty quickly that despite the interesting stuff that close quarters, tight corridors, blind turns, etc, might suggest in their minds... it turns into a cluster**** that not only isn't effective... but isn't FUN as everyone just stands still, choking off the battlefield and trading shots. So there's a reason you never really see that situation where the Archer won't ever get more than 10-20' away from the target. Only time I've really seen "tight rooms" in a dungeon and such is typically because it's the trapped room/treasure room, or both. Because the Dm wants that Firetrap that deals AoE damage to hit pretty much everyone, so make a small room so they are all in the blast radius, etc.

[Fax Celestis]

The ability to note provoke with ranged attacks...

*AND*

...The ability to threaten and make AoOs with bow shots


...was a 1st level spell in 3E. That was an immediate action to cast. It's called arrow mind, and unlike the epic feat, it was actually printed during the 3.5 run. The Epic Level Handbook was a 3.0 source book.

I am well aware. I stand by my interpretation of the reasoning here (I can hear "a spell is dispellable and not 'always on' like a feat is", even though in this case it probably would be anyway) regardless of the existence of arrow mind largely because I feel like devs are wary to give noncasters nice things (and arrow mind is a caster solution to a noncaster problem, as is bog standard in 3.P), especially when those nice things are ways to circumvent or alter what's stated in the Combat chapter of the PHB.

[The Random NPC]

(And with Conan and company charging into the room to engage in melee, that 80' or so feet they have to cross might as well be a mile)

80 feet is charging range for a Barbarian, and only 3 moves for every one else.

[ericgrau]

I don't think you can put this ability on arrows, since it can only be placed on ranged weapons. Anyway I am more and more convinced it should be a +2.
Ah I didn't realize PF gave ammunition its own category. Then at level 20 it costs 72,000 gp for +2 and 102,000 gp for +3. WBL is 880,000 gp. I think it's viable at level 17 the first way (410k WBL) and level 18 (530k WBL) the second way, but not very either way for what is only a situational advantage that might be easier to get from feats at that point.

I'll change my "vote" to +2 just to give it a chance of ever being used. +1 is almost fair but then you run the risk of too many high level characters making it an automatic choice and I firmly believe in variety in builds. And also as I explained before I didn't want this ability in particular to be too common.

[TuggyNE]

Ah I didn't realize PF gave ammunition its own category. Then at level 20 it costs 72,000 gp for +2 and 102,000 gp for +3. WBL is 880,000 gp. I think it's viable at level 17 the first way (410k WBL) and level 18 (530k WBL) the second way, but not very either way for what is only a situational advantage that might be easier to get from feats at that point.

I'll change my "vote" to +2 just to give it a chance of ever being used. +1 is almost fair but then you run the risk of too many high level characters making it an automatic choice and I firmly believe in variety in builds. And also as I explained before I didn't want this ability in particular to be too common.

Yeah, I'd agree it shouldn't be +1; if nothing else, the example of Seeking (ignores prereqs, gives half a feat, +1) indicates that it should probably be +2 for a whole feat.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Seeking gives half of an 11th level feat (and that's an understatement; it ignores ALL concealment, not just non-total) with its own slew of pre-reqs that you are ignoring.

How in the hell is seeking being a +1 an argument for this ability to be *more* expensive than a +1?

[Morphie]

You're right, I didn't considered that. Then I think I'll house rule that nimble shot is a +3 bonus if you have weapon focus with the weapon and a +2 if you have weapon specialization or if you are a ranger that chose the archery combat style.

Thank you for your answer.

It would be unwise to do that, because weapon and armor enhancements have a fixed cost/+x price, regardless of who buys it. If you give it a feat-dependent price your group can just send the guy that has the best combination of feats to buy it in order to save money.

[Kudaku]

Seeking gives half of an 11th level feat (and that's an understatement; it ignores ALL concealment, not just non-total) with its own slew of pre-reqs that you are ignoring.

How in the hell is seeking being a +1 an argument for this ability to be *more* expensive than a +1?

Seeking = 50% of a feat and is a +1 bonus.
Nimble Shot = 100% of a feat, so you double the bonus (+2).

Note that I don't necessarily agree with this logic, but that's how it reads to me.

Also, calm down dude :smallcool:

[TuggyNE]

Seeking gives half of an 11th level feat (and that's an understatement; it ignores ALL concealment, not just non-total) with its own slew of pre-reqs that you are ignoring.

How in the hell is seeking being a +1 an argument for this ability to be *more* expensive than a +1?

Kudaku is basically correct; also, IPS is about equally or slightly less situational and has slightly less restrictive prereqs, so those tend to even out. Nor did I ignore IPS's prereqs up-thread — see the little comparison table.

Whether it's worth exactly +2 I couldn't say, but that seems the best approximation, all told.